Tag implication: chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration

@fossilnix: There's already an alias request pending, it...

2017-09-02T09:35:18-04:00

There's already an alias request pending, it was made in a separate thread (topic #13958)

@☆♪: Tried to make the alias request, both as a bulk...

2017-09-02T00:41:55-04:00

Tried to make the alias request, both as a bulk update and a normal one. Either way I get "Error: Antecedent name has already been taken" - does this mean we have to delete chromatic_aberration_abuse's wiki page first? I didn't want to do that without asking.

@Mikaeri: Bump ^ I think the alias should be created,...

2017-04-19T01:24:48-04:00

Bump ^ I think the alias should be created, since we can't trust users to keep it unpopulated.

EDIT: A new topic might be better for this.

@iridescent_slime: Bumping this topic because the tag has been...

2017-03-12T07:17:25-04:00

Bumping this topic because the tag has been repopulated since the bulk update. It seemed like the consensus was to get rid of the tag (and possibly create a pool to replace it), but if users who don't participate in the forum are going to recreate it anyway, is an alias necessary after all?

@Type-kun: The bulk update request #995 has been approved.

2017-01-05T07:22:26-05:00

The bulk update request #995 has been approved.

@chilled_sake: > ☆♪ said: > > Ultimately nothing "needs" a...

2016-12-11T19:27:03-05:00

☆♪ said:

Ultimately nothing "needs" a bulk update, I suppose, but I see no reason to spend the time sitting here clicking when a mod can do it with one button press. Unlike an alias or implication, there's no persistent impact on the site from a mass update, so unless it's something like 10 posts it seems worth it to me. If you want to do it with a tag script and reject the BUR, feel free.

Thanks for pointing out the posts with the abuse tag and not the normal one though, hadn't thought of those.

Okay I was just wondering whether there was a specific reason I didn't know of. Using Danbooru EX (about:userscripts) it's pretty easy to make this change.

But I'm not convinced the tag should simply be nuked, I think captures a very specific look as in post #2544181 so maybe put these images in a pool rather than tag? I suggest the same for lens_flare_abuse.

@☆♪: > sweetpeɐ said: > > Does this really need a...

2016-12-11T19:08:19-05:00

sweetpeɐ said:

Does this really need a bulk update? I think a manual tag script of "chromatic_aberration -chromatic_aberration_abuse" for chromatic_aberration_abuse would be fine. It's only 77 results, and only two for chromatic_aberration_abuse -chromatic_aberration and they qualify as chromatic aberration.

Ultimately nothing "needs" a bulk update, I suppose, but I see no reason to spend the time sitting here clicking when a mod can do it with one button press. Unlike an alias or implication, there's no persistent impact on the site from a mass update, so unless it's something like 10 posts it seems worth it to me. If you want to do it with a tag script and reject the BUR, feel free.

Thanks for pointing out the posts with the abuse tag and not the normal one though, hadn't thought of those.

@chilled_sake: > ☆♪ said: > > mass update...

2016-12-11T18:20:24-05:00

☆♪ said:

mass update chromatic_aberration_abuse -> -chromatic_aberration_abuse

Link to request

Does this really need a bulk update? I think a manual tag script of "chromatic_aberration -chromatic_aberration_abuse" for chromatic_aberration_abuse would be fine. It's only 77 results, and only two for chromatic_aberration_abuse -chromatic_aberration and they qualify as chromatic aberration.

@user_441999: > ☆♪ said: > > I don't know how it startedI...

2016-12-11T03:29:09-05:00

☆♪ said:

I don't know how it started

I would suspect it had something to do with the similar but rather more useful lens flare abuse.

@☆♪: mass update chromatic_aberration_abuse ->...

2016-12-11T00:56:46-05:00

mass update chromatic_aberration_abuse -> -chromatic_aberration_abuse

Link to request

@☆♪: Probably don't even need an alias then. I don't...

2016-12-11T00:50:51-05:00

Probably don't even need an alias then. I don't know how it started, but I don't think many would try to tag it if it didn't show up in the completion list.

@☆♪: The tag implication chromatic_aberration_abuse...

2016-12-11T00:47:06-05:00

The tag implication chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration has been rejected.

@Mikaeri: +1 to nuking it. Seems pretty useless to me.

2016-12-10T22:31:26-05:00

+1 to nuking it. Seems pretty useless to me.

@evazion: +1 to nuking it. I don't see what useful...

2016-12-10T22:28:13-05:00

+1 to nuking it. I don't see what useful purpose it serves. Is anyone gonna add -chromatic_aberration_abuse to all their searches? No. Are you gonna blacklist it? I wouldn't, it's too subjective. It seems more like a passive-aggressive statement about the image than anything useful for searching.

@iridescent_slime: I'm not entirely convinced of the usefulness of...

2016-12-08T15:05:31-05:00

I'm not entirely convinced of the usefulness of this tag either. If it only applied to posts where the aberration were of such severity as to be visible from the thumbnail, then yeah, it might be of value as a tag. But if it's barely visible even at full zoom like in post #2509076, this is something hardly worth tagging.

Unless @Fenen can provide a pretty convincing argument that this tag can be used objectively, my vote is to change the implication to an alias.

@feline_lump: I'm not sure whether we need this tag. Isn't it...

2016-11-21T23:22:09-05:00

I'm not sure whether we need this tag. Isn't it a bit too subjective?

@☆♪: create implication chromatic_aberration_abuse...

2016-11-21T12:56:58-05:00

create implication chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration

Link to implication